Presentation on theme: "Terrain and Obstacle Databases Working Group (TOD WG) ADQ implementation workshop Alexandre Petrovsky Eurocontrol 28 May 2013."— Presentation transcript:
Terrain and Obstacle Databases Working Group (TOD WG) ADQ implementation workshop Alexandre Petrovsky Eurocontrol 28 May 2013
2 TOD WG Objectives Facilitate and coordinate TOD implementation in ECAC taking into account operational requirements and applications Collate, analyse and identify causes of difficulties arising during TOD implementation in the States Develop and recommend action to resolve these difficulties Advise EUROCONTROL (AIM/SWIM Team) and ICAO on TOD implementation.
3 eTOD – ICAO standards Area 3 = Aerodrome/Heliport (Recommendation) Area 4 = CATII/III RWY (2008) Area 1 = State (2008) Area 2 = TMA (2015)
4 Status of implementation of TOD in ECAC www.eurocontrol.int/prisme/atmatlasviewer.html?mapCode=eTOD
5 Status of TOD Area 1 and 4 implementation TOD Area 1 (2008) : Checks: Availability Terrain dataset Blue: Availability Obstacle dataset TOD Area 4 (2008): Dark Green: Completed Yellow: Partial Grey: No CAT II/III RWY
6 Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) / Minimum Safety Altitude Warning (MSAW) Instrument Flight Procedure Design Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control systems (A-SMGCS) Aeronautical Charts / On-board DB Flight simulator, obstacle management Synthetic Vision System Implementation drivers
8 TOD requirements in ADQ IR Article 2 Scope 1. … It shall apply to the following aeronautical data and aeronautical information: a)… b)electronic obstacle data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States; c)electronic terrain data, or elements thereof, where made available by Member States; d)… 2. This Regulation shall apply to the following parties: a)… b)…; c)public or private entities providing, for the purposes of this Regulation: … iii) electronic terrain data; and iv) electronic obstacle data
10 Example Area 1 obstacle dataset completeness Area 1 obstacles collected prior to TOD requirements, published in ENR 5.4 Air Navigation (En-Route) Obstacles Difficulties obtaining metadata for obstacles existing prior to TOD Options: Dont provide – no metadata Provide – caveat for missing metadata User perspective: better to have something rather than nothing TOD WG conclusion: obstacle datasets for Area 1 (the minimum being the data published in ENR 5.4) could be provided with clear documentation on missing/unknown values and with a statement about associated liabilities.
12 Other issues related to ADQ Providers outside aviation area Terrain/Obstacles datasets provider: National Geodetic Agency Military authority Number of data originators for obstacles Terrain data set format No common format defined TOD WG action: Compile a list of user and provider preferences for terrain data formats
13 Terrain dataset format: TOD WG analysis Analysed formats: GeoTIFF, DTED, USGS DEM, ESRI Grid, ASCII Grid, Raw binary, ASCII XYZ, City GML, Shape, TIN etc. None fully met ISO 19100 series requirements as required by ICAO and ADQ But, all formats could be used by the existing GIS for the exchange of data. Next-intended users preferred format: GeoTIFF & Metadata
14 Summary TOD implementation advances in ECAC Identified issues related to ADQ : Reluctance to make available TOD due to additional ADQ requirements better to have no data or partly compliant data? example with Area 1 obstacle completeness ADQ requirements for non-aviation TOD providers fit-for-purpose requirements? Terrain formats User most preferred format
15 More information about TOD: Website: www.eurocontrol.int/services/terrain-and-obstacle-datawww.eurocontrol.int/services/terrain-and-obstacle-data Email: email@example.com